Hypothetical Question: Is it wrong to not hire someone on the grounds of their religious belief?

I'm not talking about being prejudice against one religion or another - but not hiring someone BECAUSE they have a religious belief.

I was thinking that in a job that requires good common sense, rational analysis, logical thinking - why would you hire someone that believes in God - and thus who openly admits to being irrational, illogical and/or delusional.

Is there a court in the US or UK, for example, that would support this position?

Basically - why is religion the only area of peoples' lives that is beyond scrutiny when it comes to psychological state of mind?

I wont hire people of thoes caste that killed my parents, abused me, robbed my brother, they dont know eachother but they all spoke same language. Now these people are famous for such acts so I will make sure that they are eliminated , hiring is nowhere in question for such people, simple

I think that religion is brain washing people all over the world.
is it a coincidence that religios people are uually the same religion as their parents?
No, people are hardly given a choice when it comes to religion. They believe ahat they are brought up to believe
It is brain washing us!
Stamp it out!
Right out!

I think that religion is brain washing people all over the world.
is it a coincidence that religios people are uually the same religion as their parents?
No, people are hardly given a choice when it comes to religion. They believe ahat they are brought up to believe
It is brain washing us!
Stamp it out!
Right out!

Although they were of same my religion they were from a notorious caste

Could it be that theists are hypocrites, hence when placed in real life situations, think very much like an atheist, rationally and reasonably?

Nah.

in answer to your question i doubt that the UK would suport that, there laws are similar to Aust (to the exstent that our court desisions can be used as presedent in there courts) and its DEFINITLY not alowed here.

Hypothetical Question: Is it wrong to not hire someone on the grounds of their religious belief?

I'm not talking about being prejudice against one religion or another - but not hiring someone BECAUSE they have a religious belief.

I was thinking that in a job that requires good common sense, rational analysis, logical thinking - why would you hire someone that believes in God - and thus who openly admits to being irrational, illogical and/or delusional.

Is there a court in the US or UK, for example, that would support this position?

Basically - why is religion the only area of peoples' lives that is beyond scrutiny when it comes to psychological state of mind?In the US that would be wrong to do. It would be considered discrimination. A person's ability to do the job should be the basis for there qualification for employment. To not hire them based on race, color, gender, religion, or lifestyle, is not allowable in the US and is against the law.

In most countries discrimination against a religion is not supported by courts (with possible exceptions of theocratic states).

However, if you are very insistent on your believes in your resume while applying for instance for a science job, one might consider you not to be a perfect candidate. You might not get invited for a job interview for instance. No one would openly put forward belief as the reason, though (as discrimination against religion is usually forbidden).
On the other hand, one has usually to be very "agressively" religious to be a denied a job (openly or not).

...

person's ability to do the job should be the basis for there qualification for employment
Doesn't adhering to a religion at all indicate that they're disqualified for a job that requires rational thought?
Umm, I have an irrational belief in an unprovable deity, but I, having thereby demonstrated that I don't believe science is correct, expect you to trust me to do the calculations for this bridge you're building?
Never thought about 'til I read your question Sarkus. Demonstrates how insidious religious belief is, non-believers rarely question belief on that level.
Change the wording: would it be wrong to refuse someone a job because they expressed a belief in living their life according to what they'd been told (or had read they were told) by the chewing-gum wrapper that someone found on the street?
Put like that the answer has to be, I'd not only refuse them the job, but I'd ring for the guys in white coats.

Doesn't adhering to a religion at all indicate that they're disqualified for a job that requires rational thought?
Umm, I have an irrational belief in an unprovable deity, but I, having thereby demonstrated that I don't believe science is correct, expect you to trust me to do the calculations for this bridge you're building?
I would have to disagree with those questions, Oli, because people from Eastern religions have excelled in math & computer sciences and have demonstrated to be reliable employees. Even when they are overtly dressed according to their religious doctrines to their interviews, their resumes demonstrate that they would be excellent candidates for the position they are applying for. Their belief in a god, or gods, should not be in questioned whether they can perform the job assignments. An employer's only question should be if they are dependable to do the job.

Hypothetical Question: Is it wrong to not hire someone on the grounds of their religious belief?no.

I'm not talking about being prejudice against one religion or another - but not hiring someone BECAUSE they have a religious belief.understood, however it would be irrational to hire someone who was irrational, your asking for trouble.

I was thinking that in a job that requires good common sense, rational analysis, logical thinking - why would you hire someone that believes in God - and thus who openly admits to being irrational, illogical and/or delusional.would you put them in a position of authority, no of course not.
working a broom or shovel, thats about the limit.

Is there a court in the US or UK, for example, that would support this position?no, it's discrimination.
but I dont employ them.
when interviewing someone if they happen to mention there religious or I find out from some other means,( and I mean all religions even buddism, taoism)I make some excuse, Ie the other candidate was slightly better, you've not had enough experience, your over qualified for this position, etc...
I have to find out before their employed as it near impossible to get rid after, they are a danger to other people, religion kills.

Basically - why is religion the only area of peoples' lives that is beyond scrutiny when it comes to psychological state of mind?go figure.

Yeah SVRP, I agree totally that belief does not preclude ability in maths, etc. but the point (or maybe two points) I was expressing badly :) was:
there's a dichotomy/ hypocrisy (on their part), a belief in the "supernatural" but also an acceptance that science works
and, for the more "devout", like I said, if you rephrase the way I did with the chewing gum wrapper then that person would be regarded as mentally unstable.
It's an indicator of how much religious belief is taken as normal, and I read Sarkus' question as asking why do we, and should we?
Basically - why is religion the only area of peoples' lives that is beyond scrutiny when it comes to psychological state of mind?

If you think religious people arnt capable of being the most brillant people on earth rember that Newton belived in god

Since when has logic been considered unacceptable grounds upon which to base a belief? While not all beliefs in God rest on logic, it would be untrue to say that all beliefs in a God are entirely unfounded. The origin of the universe is as yet unknown. An uncaused cause is as good a theory as the uncaused universe. Each have their own backing logic. Mere belief in a God does not preclude rationality. That is a fantasy you like to entertain. Many, probably most, religions hold reason in high esteem. Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, each of these religions teaches that one of the beautiful distinctions between man and animal is intellect, rationality. The most brilliant men in history held religious beliefs. The greatest civilizations in history all held their own religious beliefs. Consider the monumental achievements of the Egyptians, which necessitated strong scientific understanding, who were also highly religious.

Humans are historically both religious and scientific. The two fields represent the two basic functions of the mind, which exist in every human mind. To deny someone employment based on the fact that they're religious is to deny that they're human. Moreover, it's a denial of a part of yourself.

and why add budaisum to your list the preacher ? surly that religion is EXACTLY what you want in a scientist or doc? It teaches you to question EVERYTHING

If you think religious people arnt capable of being the most brillant people on earth rember that Newton belived in god
He did, and thereby wasted a large portion of his brilliance on something that does not provably exist.
Moreover, it's a denial of a part of yourself Okay, tell me where that part is and I'll start looking after it. :p

Yeah SVRP, I agree totally that belief does not preclude ability in maths, etc. but the point (or maybe two points) I was expressing badly :) was:
there's a dichotomy/ hypocrisy (on their part), a belief in the "supernatural" but also an acceptance that science works
and, for the more "devout", like I said, if you rephrase the way I did with the chewing gum wrapper then that person would be regarded as mentally unstable.
It's an indicator of how much religious belief is taken as normal, and I read Sarkus' question as asking why do we, and should we?Understood, Oli, and thank you for the reply. My point is to be fair to all individuals not matter what beliefs or state of mind the person contains. Discrimination is a very slippy slope to walk on, and lawsuits are inevitable if found out (I am involved in a class-action lawsuit against a national company because they discriminated against gender).

An employer may take into consideration profile tests for rationality before a candidate is hired, but even those who consider themselves "rational" may not pass the test because they are considered "unstable". A belief system provides an emotional anchor and stability for the many stresses that a job creates on a person. It should be an asset for any employer who is looking to fulfill a position. And as Asgard has pointed out there are many brilliant scientists who believe in God.

Discrimination is a very slippy slope to walk on Agreed again. Since I've assumed this is a philosophical discussion as opposed to real life as it is lived I've taken a stance somewhat harder than I ever actually would :D But the points raised remain valid.
But I did find the question, and subsequent answers, interesting hence the participation.

If you think religious people arnt capable of being the most brillant people on earth rember that Newton belived in god
and just imagine how much more brillant, he would have been if it was'nt for that bit irrationality, holding him back.


Since when has logic been considered unacceptable grounds upon which to base a belief? if the believe is a fact or has very good evidence for it's truth then, then never, however if the believe is based on faith, then it is unacceptable.While not all beliefs in God rest on logic,no belief in god rest in logic. it would be untrue to say that all beliefs in a God are entirely unfounded.no it would'nt, without any evidence to back it up it must be unfounded. The origin of the universe is as yet unknown. An uncaused cause is as good a theory no as it would be infantile to believe that way, you may as well say that a big blue dolphin riding a horse caused it.as the uncaused universe. the uncaused universe makes more sense than any god did it theory. . Each have their own backing logic.no only one has a backing in logic, the other is purely faith. .Mere belief in a God does not preclude rationality.when it comes to a sky daddy, oh yes it does. .That is a fantasy you like to entertain. Many, probably most, religions hold reason in high esteem. thats as maybe, but reason should be the foremost tool man uses, and not be held back by some irrational faith, the world needs more critcal thinkers, we dont need sheep..Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, each of these religions teaches that one of the beautiful distinctions between man and animal is intellect, rationality.but it is irrational, therefore contradicts it's self. .The most brilliant men in history held religious beliefs. The greatest civilizations in history all held their own religious beliefs. Consider the monumental achievements of the Egyptians, which necessitated strong scientific understanding, who were also highly religious.but think how far more advanced we'd be now, if it was'nt for the iirrationality of religion.Humans are historically both religious and scientific. The two fields represent the two basic functions of the mind, which exist in every human mind.no humans have a objective half and a subjective half These two fields represent the two basic functions of the mind, we need both of these to be human, and as humans should know the difference between reality and fantasy. To deny someone employment based on the fact that they're religiousno there not denied a job based on religion, but the fact that they can not discern between fantasy and reality. is to deny that they're human. no not so it's just dangerous to employ someone who is irrational.Moreover, it's a denial of a part of yourself.I think it is more sensible of me to have a work force who can critcal think and who are very unlikely of causeing any danger to their fellow workers.



and why add budaisum to your list the preacher ? surly that religion is EXACTLY what you want in a scientist or doc? It teaches you to question EVERYTHINGthe body, mind concept could be good, however the spirit concept loses it for me as soon as any religion brings in the irrational, in the buddhist case karma and rebirth, then it means they can not be wholly rational. does'nt it. .

Many, probably most, religions hold reason in high esteem Except when it comes to questioning the bible/ church/ foundation of that religion, unless the question is stated as being "hypothetical". In a large number of cases (ie nearly every one of those that I have read about) when the "higly esteemed rationality" contradicted holy writ, however defined, the least punishment inflicted was to be told that the error was in the reasoning, not the writ. Worse punishments were handed out for persistence in following truly rational thought.
So, yes, religions hold reason in high esteem, provided they can define the limits of that reason.

i think this is a trick question
the obvious answer is no, that is horrible, hwo could you do such a thing
but, what about a religion which commands you to obey the sabath? and you only need to hire them on that particular day

You mean make a false offer to hire a devout religionist, but only to be employed on his/ her sabbath? They wouldn't apply for the job :p

preacher i wouldnt employ YOU, because you have a closed mind so what good would you be in my line of work (cheffing) where questioning rather than following instructions are important, also why would i want you as a doc or scientist? you would dismiss evidence if it contridicts yours.

Basically i HATE fundimentilists ANYTHING athiasts, christans, muslims, anything. I hate people who dont admit that others could be right

Why hate them, they could be right

preacher i wouldnt employ YOU, fair enough, thats your perogativebecause you have a closed mind so what good would you be in my line of work (cheffing) I would'nt say closed minded, just sensible. where questioning rather than following instructions are important,thats the whole point, you need critical thinkers, not sheep.
if you had an assistant, who stood around with his finger up his arse, in a day dream, not knowing what to do next, would you trust him to handle knifes and hot utencils, without you having to keep your eyes, on him all the time, he's a danger to himself and others also why would i want you as a doc or scientist? you would dismiss evidence if it contridicts yours.if I was religious (luckily, I'm not.) then if a scientistic theory went against my believes, yes I would dismiss it, but as you know sciences questions.
Basically i HATE fundimentilists ANYTHING atheists, christans, muslims, anything. me too.I hate people who dont admit that others could be rightI have not said the religious are not right, but until they can produce evidence of the existent of a god, I have to go on the facts, as they exist today, so I cant employ someone who has his head in the clouds, it would be dangerous to my work force.

The religious are at least 99.99% wrong. If there are 10000 religions and accompanying sects, then only one could have it right. that leaves 9999 out of 10000 wrong. And it's a very good bet that all 10000 are wrong.

if I was religious (luckily, I'm not.) then if a scientistic theory went against my believes, yes I would dismiss it, but as you know sciences questions
That's the convincer. The fact that science questions is not an excuse for dismissing a scientific theory because of your own beliefs.
That, and that alone, is THE reason to refuse employment to people with a religion.
Thankyou :D

Well if someone started quoting the bible at their job interview I wouldn't fancy their chances :D

There's always the option of battering the interviewer with it until he gives you the job :eek:

Or frightening the interviewer with the prospect of eternal slavery in the pits of hell for not carrying out Gods will by giving thee faithful the job.

How about religious doctors? Would you try them?

Not all religions are against logic and reason. But they allow you leave things really beyond your comprehension and progress yet...

Not all religions are against logic and reason.

Such as... ?

How about religious doctors? Would you try them?

Doctors are evil anyway, wether they be religious or not. How dare they meddle with Gods will.

God made us intelligent creatures so we could pray, not to become doctors.

Agreed again. Since I've assumed this is a philosophical discussion as opposed to real life as it is lived I've taken a stance somewhat harder than I ever actually would :D But the points raised remain valid.
But I did find the question, and subsequent answers, interesting hence the participation.

Very good, Oli, and yes it is an interesting discussion. :p
One thing brings up to mind is this – what if the religious job applicant is right and the unbelieving employer is wrong? According to their thinking it would be irrational not to believe there is a God.
So the question is - Who determines what is rational or not? Wouldn’t it be necessary to prove if there is a God or not? And what proof would both sides accept? Wouldn’t you agree there are two sides to this discussion? Being rational and logical would require someone to look objectively at both sides. Wouldn’t you agree?

Not all religions are against logic and reason.

Such as... ?
Hinduism for example, is open to logic and doesn't see religion different from reason. It assimilates continuously.

Hmmm, I assume I'm being rational and objective :D
If there IS a god then I can explain no better than this:
We are not to suppose that any truth concerning the Natural World can be an Enemy to Religion; for Truth cannot be an Enemy to Truth, God is not divided against himself; and therefore we ought not upon that account to condemn or censure what we have not examin’d or cannot disprove; as those that are of this narrow Spirit we are speaking of, are very apt to do. Let every thing be tri’d and examin’d in the first place, whether it be True or False; and if it be found false, ’tis then to be consider’d, whether it be such a falsity as is prejudicial to Religion or no. Which I've posted once elsewhere, this is from The Sacred Theory of the Earth by Thomas Burnet which "proved" using the Bible that Atlantis existed IIRC.
If there is a god then by definition god gave us the free will and thirst for knowledge that we have, plus the senses and thought processes we use to evaluate that information, therefore if there is a god and science is wrong it's because we've been misled or incorrectly equipped BY HIM to think about the world.
The religious applicant may be right, but as per the post above, if the applicant finds himself in a situation where his beliefs conflict with science he'll choose his belief. It's a question of "would you hire someone who operates in the real world using the observed laws of that world, or do you want someone who hypocritically uses them until he decides they no longer applyand then goes against them?"
I'm not sure about According to their thinking it would be irrational not to believe there is a God admitted according to their belief that's true, but other than pointing at the bible and saying "it says it's true here" there's no substantiating evidence, as opposed to science which is nothing but susbstantiating evidence (well, not 100%, but you know what I mean :) )
What proof would both sides accept? Well the scientist/ sceptic will accept that god exists if there solid evidence. As far as I can see the believer will not accept non-existence on any proof, it's a matter of faith.
It comes down to if there is no evidence of god then there is no need for belief, on one side, and the other side says, effectively, regardless of lack of evidence I WILL believe. In fact I vaguley remember reading somewhere that one prominent believer said "if the church itself should prove there is no god, it would still not alter my faith". That is a good defintion of irrational.

Hinduism for example, is open to logic and doesn't see religion different from reason.

It is a religion that believes in gods, how is that reasonable?

Hinduism for example, is open to logic and doesn't see religion different from reason. It assimilates continuously.
does it believe in a god /gods, short answer yes, then it 's not rational.
thats where all religion's lose it, that one bit of irrationality, makes the religious person useless.

It is a religion that believes in gods, how is that reasonable?

You have to understand what those gods (pictures) represent.

does it believe in a god /gods, short answer yes, then it 's not rational.

Hm. Is that so...

Religion, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel the complete with religion in there life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next.

Religion, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses
Evidence forthcoming??

Religion, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel the complete with religion in there life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next.

I was just reading that and thought:


"Love, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel complete with love in their life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next."

And just as the original post, there's no proof, there's no evidence, there's nothing but opinion based on .....what? Anyone can make a statement, or post their opinion, but ....what's it mean? Nothing.

"I think that the moon is made of cheese!" Oh, and the dust and rocks that the astronauts found is just "stuff" that landed on the cheese!!

Baron Max

I was just reading that and thought:


"Love, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel complete with love in their life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next."you can subsitute any word, such as hate, fear, hysteria., etc......
there's no proof, there's no evidence, there's nothing but opinion based on ...what? fact, as there is no god/gods then what other reason can there be for religion, if you tell people that they will be killed by the all and powerful oz, if they dont do this or that, their fear of retribution, will keep them in order.
it's just basic common sense.

"I think that the moon is made of cheese!" Oh, and the dust and rocks that the astronauts found is just "stuff" that landed on the cheese
that's funny I do too. and on the dark side, theres 200 ft high kangaroo elephants, called kangaphants, they have to be that big because of the low gravity, they stay on the dark side because there shy.

fact, as there is no god/gods...

To make that statement as a "fact", then shouldn't you have proof of it?

Or do you mean that you have a "reasoned" opinion that there is no god(s)?

Baron Max

no I know theres no god, it only takes one small speck of a thing, to prove it exists, and no one since the dawn of time or religion has shown, any evidence hence why all religions rely on faith alone, however as I can not travel the entire universe and look in every nook and crannie, and check to see if it's hiding there, it would be foolish to say something absolutely does'nt exist, just like I cant be sure theres life on another planet somewhere, so until such time as someone can prove the 0.0000000000000 infinitum 001, possiblity that a god exists, I can be 99.999999999999 infinitum, sure it doe'nt, as such the onus is on the one who asserts it exists to provide proof.

and dont forget there are kangaphants on the dark side of the moon, they exist, but I have no prove of it, take it on faith.

Hmmm, I assume I'm being rational and objective :D
If there IS a god then I can explain no better than this:
Which I've posted once elsewhere, this is from The Sacred Theory of the Earth by Thomas Burnet which "proved" using the Bible that Atlantis existed IIRC.
If there is a god then by definition god gave us the free will and thirst for knowledge that we have, plus the senses and thought processes we use to evaluate that information, therefore if there is a god and science is wrong it's because we've been misled or incorrectly equipped BY HIM to think about the world. Interesting quote, Oli, but I may have to disagree with Thomas Burnet.

The religious applicant may be right, but as per the post above, if the applicant finds himself in a situation where his beliefs conflict with science he'll choose his belief. It's a question of "would you hire someone who operates in the real world using the observed laws of that world, or do you want someone who hypocritically uses them until he decides they no longer applyand then goes against them?" But in what field of science would that apply? If a religious person applies for a job & is capable of acquiring an interview with the employer, then you have to assume the religious applicant has the necessary skills for the job in that field of science. What field of science would not consider a religious person?

What proof would both sides accept? Well the scientist/ sceptic will accept that god exists if there solid evidence. As far as I can see the believer will not accept non-existence on any proof, it's a matter of faith.
It comes down to if there is no evidence of god then there is no need for belief, on one side, and the other side says, effectively, regardless of lack of evidence I WILL believe. In fact I vaguley remember reading somewhere that one prominent believer said "if the church itself should prove there is no god, it would still not alter my faith". That is a good defintion of irrational.I understand some things you are saying, Oli. But wouldn’t you think if a person is zealously religious would they study a science discipline that would be contrary to their beliefs? My answer to that would be no. Therefore, if a religious person is an applicant to a job in a field of science then that science is in conjunction with what he believes.

Now as for the question whether God exists or not
First, major national science organizations have publicly proclaimed that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. They are neutral on the subject.
Second, if God does not exist, then life began through some type of “spontaneous generation”. But it has already been proven by science that life comes from life.
Third, scientifically speaking, can you prove any major figure in the past? The answer to that would be ‘no’.

So what evidence will be acceptable as proof of God’s existence?

If a religious person applies for a job & is capable of acquiring an interview with the employer, then you have to assume the religious applicant has the necessary skills for the job in that field of science. What field of science would not consider a religious person?all of them I hope, how can you take what a religious person says or does seriously, aledge scientist or not. But wouldn’t you think if a person is zealously religious would they study a science discipline that would be contrary to their beliefs? My answer to that would be no. Therefore, if a religious person is an applicant to a job in a field of science then that science is in conjunction with what he believes.science and religion are mutually exclusive, and never the twain shall meet.Now as for the question whether God exists or not
First, major national science organizations have publicly proclaimed that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. They are neutral on the subject. they can be 99.9999999999999 recurring that a god does not exist, but as they can not travel the cosmos and check everywhere to see, they have to say it's not absolute.
Second, if God does not exist, then life began through some type of “spontaneous generation”. But it has already been proven by science that life comes from life. time, chance and natural chemical processes created life in the beginning. life is made up of atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions, it's just simply chemistry and nothing else, life originated by chance chemical reactions. could you post up where it has been proven, that as you said "life comes from life", as it new to me and the entire science community
Third, scientifically speaking, can you prove any major figure in the past? The answer to that would be ‘no’. the answer is yes, 2686 - 2613 B.C.the 3rd Dynasty.(4686 years ago)Pharaoh Netjerkhet also known as Djoser his mummy is in the collection of Qasr el-Aini in Cairo there was an older one from the first dynasty, but since lost of the pharaoh Djer around 3150 - 3050 B.C.95150 years ago)http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/1723/stepyramid5nn.gif
The first Egyptian pyramid was the step pyramid for the pharaoh Djoser at Saqqara. The pyramid formed a stairway for the dead pharaoh to ascend to the heavens.
there is a lot of info on the net and in books etc..
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3631/djoser1px.gif
During an excavation in 1924-26, a pedestal of a statue of Djoser was found. This complex represents the first major work in stone. That is, unless there are other works that have yet to be found.

so you see we have evidence for ancient people but no evidence can be produced for a god.
So what evidence will be acceptable as proof of God’s existence?there is none. unless it wants to show it's self, but pigs will fly first.

all of them I hope, how can you take what a religious person says or does seriously, aledge scientist or not. science and religion are mutually exclusive, and never the twain shall meet.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein.

time, chance and natural chemical processes created life in the beginning. life is made up of atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions, it's just simply chemistry and nothing else, life originated by chance chemical reactions. could you post up where it has been proven, that as you said "life comes from life", as it new to me and the entire science community

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html
http://www.panspermia.org/pasteur.htm

And could you post up the experiment that proves life came from chance?
the answer is yes, 2686 - 2613 B.C.the 3rd Dynasty.(4686 years ago)Pharaoh Netjerkhet also known as Djoser his mummy is in the collection of Qasr el-Aini in Cairo there was an older one from the first dynasty, but since lost of the pharaoh Djer around 3150 - 3050 B.C.95150 years ago)
During an excavation in 1924-26, a pedestal of a statue of Djoser was found. This complex represents the first major work in stone. That is, unless there are other works that have yet to be found. Without any documentation or written word, how did the scientists know that this was the mummy of Djoser? In other words, what was about the mummy itself that said, “This is Djoser”?
so you see we have evidence for ancient people but no evidence can be produced for a god. You have evidence because of documentation. Without documentation you wouldn’t know who existed in the past. That is archaeology and history. There are hundreds of mummies found by archaeologists, but without documentation we will never know who they were.

The question still remains - what evidence will be acceptable as proof of God’s existence?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein."There are those in the know, and there are those who believe they know.
"-- Medicine Woman.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html
http://www.panspermia.org/pasteur.htmis this all you can come up with science that's over a 150 years old, we come along way since then.
why chemical evolution is the correct view, chemical evolution has not been falsified. One would be irrational to adhere to a falsified hypothesis. they have only presented a case that chemical evolution does'nt seem plausible at this time. By the nature of the case that is all one can do. In a strict, technical sense, chemical evolution cannot be falsified because it is not falsifiable. Chemical evolution is a highly likely reconstruction of a unique past event. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050911103921.htm
Without any documentation or written word, how did the scientists know that this was the mummy of Djoser? In other words, what was about the mummy itself that said, “This is Djoser”? perhaps your a complete idiot, but they found the tomb/pyramid first, the body was'nt laying out in the sun waiting for some one to pass by, they read the hieroglyphics on the stones inside and out, there was'nt a note pad by the body, saying this is djoser, they found a pedestal of a statue of Djoser, so everything pointed to the pyramid being the tomb of pharaoh djoser, so I think the could be pretty certain the mummy was him, but of course nearly five thousand years ago somebody could of opened the sarcophagus, took his body out and replaced it with another mummy, just for the fun of it.
You have evidence because of documentation. Without documentation you wouldn’t know who existed in the past. That is archaeology and history. There are hundreds of mummies found by archaeologists, but without documentation we will never know who they were. the documentation is often written in the stone of the pyramids, hence why archaeologists learn to read hieroglyphics.The question still remains - what evidence will be acceptable as proof of God’s existence?there is none.

"There are those in the know, and there are those who believe they know.
"-- Medicine Woman. And Medicine Woman is the source of your information? How sad.
is this all you can come up with science that's over a 150 years old, we come along way since then.
why chemical evolution is the correct view, chemical evolution has not been falsified. One would be irrational to adhere to a falsified hypothesis. they have only presented a case that chemical evolution does'nt seem plausible at this time. By the nature of the case that is all one can do. In a strict, technical sense, chemical evolution cannot be falsified because it is not falsifiable. Chemical evolution is a highly likely reconstruction of a unique past event. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050911103921.htm Louis Pasteur experiment still stands and is consider the one to overcome for abiogensis to have any value. Present day biologists and scientists know that even today. And the Miller-Urey experiment produced organic compounds & not life. You still have no proof but just a theory. Where is the experiment that actually produced life?
perhaps your a complete idiot, but they found the tomb/pyramid first, the body was'nt laying out in the sun waiting for some one to pass by, they read the hieroglyphics on the stones inside and out, there was'nt a note pad by the body, saying this is djoser, they found a pedestal of a statue of Djoser, so everything pointed to the pyramid being the tomb of pharaoh djoser, so I think the could be pretty certain the mummy was him, but of course nearly five thousand years ago somebody could of opened the sarcophagus, took his body out and replaced it with another mummy, just for the fun of it. the documentation is often written in the stone of the pyramids, hence why archaeologists learn to read hieroglyphics. So you agree without the written word or some documentation (like the hieroglyphics on the pyramid) no one would have known the mummy was that of Djoser. That, geeser, is not science but history.
And if archaeology and history is the source for finding past figures, then it is the same source to prove God exists.

I was just reading that and thought:


"Love, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel complete with love in their life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next."

And just as the original post, there's no proof, there's no evidence, there's nothing but opinion based on .....what? Anyone can make a statement, or post their opinion, but ....what's it mean? Nothing.



Religion is a way of life for those who practice it. If one were to look at the religions of the world, they would notice a base similarity between them: They all have a set of rules ( or commandments or redes, etc, etc.). The followers of a religion chose that religion because the rules were compatible with the way that person felt comfortable leading their life . Also, in each religion, their is reward for following the rules, and there is punishment for disobeying them. This is why I believe religion to be a way to control the masses. Some believe in the government, some in love, some hate, some pride, etc. These are not classified as religions, but could be looked at as if they were ways of life. Everyone has a path they follow in life, whether it be fictional, denominational, ethical, whatever. Those that need control from other sources tend to rely on commercial religions. Those that can control themselves have some main attribute they live by. Hopefully, I explained this well enough for everyone.

So you agree without the written word or some documentation (like the hieroglyphics on the pyramid) no one would have known the mummy was that of Djoser. That, geeser, is not science but history.no it's the science of archaeology.
And if archaeology and history is the source for finding past figures, then it is the same source to prove God exists.how, the is no archaeological or historical evidence for god, jesus, or moses, only biblical mythology.
so there is no comparison, therefore god can not be proven, where are the bodies where is the dna, where is the geneology, where are the tombs.
until such time they can produce one ounce of evidence it must remain just myth.

And Medicine Woman is the source of your information? How sad. that is one of the best quote's I've come across, all power to M*W elbow.
Where is the experiment that actually produced life? theres is none as you well know, but there is none for life came for life either, chemical evolution has not been falsified, which is better than god did it, which is quite plainly stupid.
So you agree without the written word or some documentation (like the hieroglyphics on the pyramid) no one would have known the mummy was that of Djoser. That, geeser, is not science but history.no it's Archaeological Science (http://www.socarchsci.org/)
And if archaeology and history is the source for finding past figures, then it is the same source to prove God exists.not so, the bible is a book of myth, there has never been any Archaeological evidence for noah, cain and abel, moses, jesus, or god.

In the US that would be wrong to do. It would be considered discrimination. A person's ability to do the job should be the basis for there qualification for employment. To not hire them based on race, color, gender, religion, or lifestyle, is not allowable in the US and is against the law.

What if their lifestyle is as a criminal or peadophile?

Then it would be pretty hard to hire that person because they would be in jail.

theres is none as you well know, but there is none for life came for life either, chemical evolution has not been falsified, which is better than god did it, which is quite plainly stupid. There is where you are wrong, geeser, because Louis Pasteur's experiment implies that you need a source of life to make life. It still stands to this day and anything else is “blind faith” in a “scientific theory” which has no proof.

how, the is no archaeological or historical evidence for god, jesus, or moses, only biblical mythology.
so there is no comparison, therefore god can not be proven, where are the bodies where is the dna, where is the geneology, where are the tombs.
until such time they can produce one ounce of evidence it must remain just myth. the bible is a book of myth, there has never been any Archaeological evidence for noah, cain and abel, moses, jesus, or god.On the contrary, mustafhakofi & geeser, there has been plenty of biblical archaeology that has yet to supplant any of the history in the bible. For example, Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, spent 30 years of his life trying to disprove the New Testament, especially Luke’s writings. After intensive research, Ramsey concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of all time. It is not a myth as you would wish. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth has been researched by independent news organizations, national magazines, and hundreds of historians and archaeologists. The resurrection is a historic event and shows the power of God. And God only needs one action to say it all.

On the contrary, mustafhakofi & geeser, there has been plenty of biblical archaeology that has yet to supplant any of the history in the bible. For example, Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, spent 30 years of his life trying to disprove the New Testament, especially Luke’s writings. After intensive research, Ramsey concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of all time.Sir William Ramsey, was a Chemist
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was an archaeologist be more thorough, please. and it would help if you post a link.
He was a theologian, he studied Divinity at Oxford, but never took the degree. He writes how he studied as a young man for his exams on the 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England. (If I remember rightly, only believing members of the Church of England were allowed to attend Oxford or Cambridge University at that time)

He drew inspiration from the Bible, which he described as 'life-giving', and wrote how he studied Galatians for inspiration. He was also inspired by his mother's love for Paul. It seems fundamentalism ran in the family.

he set out to prove that St Luke in Acts had been Archaeologically correct in the naming of cities countries, I'm not disputing that luke was'nt an historian, physician, of the first order, but as a chronicler, he delved it to fantasy to often, as did the other gospel writers, when he writes of the resurrection, All of Christianity hinges on the Resurrection. as Paul says, without the resurrection of Christ “our preaching is useless and so is your faith. . . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and theres your wake up call. It is not a myth as you would wish. it's not a wish, I could'nt care a toss, I have no believe in a god, or jesus. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth has been researched by independent news organizations, national magazines, and hundreds of historians and archaeologists. The resurrection is a historic event and shows the power of God. And God only needs one action to say it all. has it?
care to show, were they independant studies if any. or were they done by theologians.

Not only has the divinity of jesus been past over, but his existence as a man is more seriously questioned. Some of the greatest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A damning literature dealing with this inquiry, intensely serious and thorough in its research, is growing in all countries, and spreading like wildfire, that Christ is a myth. The question is one of great importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of extreme significance. The Christian religion has been a fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has drunk for centuries the best of mankind. It has slowed the march of civilization, and destroyed of some of the most intelligent minds: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of brotherhood of humanity. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Live?" goes to the very basis of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon the decision depends, to some degree, as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether jesus had or had'nt lived, has nothing to do with what the church teaches, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is what does history say? If the thinking world is to hold to the position that jesus was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to hold to that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; then it must be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other fantasy heros whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.

Did Jesus Ever Live or Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth? (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/historicus/jesus.html)
did jesus exist (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html)
did jesus exist - all sides to the question (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm)

Sir William Ramsey, was a Chemist
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was an archaeologist be more thorough, please. and it would help if you post a link.
He was a theologian, he studied Divinity at Oxford, but never took the degree. He writes how he studied as a young man for his exams on the 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England. (If I remember rightly, only believing members of the Church of England were allowed to attend Oxford or Cambridge University at that time)

He drew inspiration from the Bible, which he described as 'life-giving', and wrote how he studied Galatians for inspiration. He was also inspired by his mother's love for Paul. It seems fundamentalism ran in the family.

he set out to prove that St Luke in Acts had been Archaeologically correct in the naming of cities countries, I'm not disputing that luke was'nt an historian, physician, of the first order, but as a chronicler, he delved it to fantasy to often, as did the other gospel writers, when he writes of the resurrection, All of Christianity hinges on the Resurrection. as Paul says, without the resurrection of Christ “our preaching is useless and so is your faith. . . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and theres your wake up call. I think you better find the link to the William Ramsey that you have referred to, geeser. The one I am referring to was an archaeologist and not a theologian. If you read his biography it is not the same man you have illustrated above.

http://webminister.com/ramsay/rbi001.shtml
http://webminister.com/ramsay/rbi002.shtml
http://webminister.com/ramsay/home.htm

care to show, were they independant studies if any. or were they done by theologians. Maybe this list will do & you will note the majority are not theologians.
http://www.tektonics.org/testimony/archmony.htm

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050613/jesus.html

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Lockwood/Germaine/Charles/1930/Cosmos/ch12.html

Whether jesus had or had'nt lived, has nothing to do with what the church teaches, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is what does history say? If the thinking world is to hold to the position that jesus was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to hold to that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; then it must be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other fantasy heros whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world. This response at a science history website should answer that.
“There is plenty of historical evidence, from a variety of sources, that Jesus existed. No one who takes the trouble to familiarize herself with the evidence can doubt it. The "Enlightenment" position that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth, itinerant Jewish preacher, is quite dead.” (quoted from Dan Berger, Faculty Chemistry/Science, Bluffton College http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919714996.Sh.r.html )

Other sources of interest
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=772399&page=1

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

http://www.rense.com/general43/jesus.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html

(Posting another person's words & passing them as your own is called plagiarism. Please note them as such & post the sources. :rolleyes: )

Then it would be pretty hard to hire that person because they would be in jail.

Not if they have finished their sentence

In Britain a convicted peadophile would not be allowed to work with children

I think you better find the link to the William Ramsey that you have referred to, geeser. The one I am referring to was an archaeologist and not a theologian. If you read his biography it is not the same man you have illustrated above. thank you for your reply but I'm losing the will to live.
I quite honestly could not give a toss whether ramsay was a theologian or not.
your never going to convince me that jesus ever lived, and your far to happy in your lunacy to know reality.
Maybe this list will do no the list does not do.
read above statement. and jesus could not have existed, as the stories of such a person have been handed down over thousands of years and stolen from other religions, these stories can be traced back to Mithras (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40933) and then theres the crucifixion (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45999)
I live in the real world, I have an imagination like everybody, thus I know the difference between hallucination and reality.
so therefore we should beg to differ, cause as I've said I'm losing the will to live.

thank you for your reply but I'm losing the will to live.
I quite honestly could not give a toss whether ramsay was a theologian or not.
your never going to convince me that jesus ever lived, and your far to happy in your lunacy to know reality. Sorry about you losing your will to live, geeser, but if your perception to my responses are to convince you that Jesus lived, then you have given me too much credit. I am here to give a healthy debate to common misconceptions about God, religion, Jesus, etc. In fact wouldn’t you agree that your stance on “never going to convince” you about Jesus is exactly like what a closed minded zealous theist would say in regards to their “beliefs”? If you are a free-thinker then are you willing to explore the other side of the question, “Does God exist?”, in depth? Are you free to do that? Are you willing to be a “truth-seeker”? If not, then you are just as “religious” in your non-religious beliefs as a closed minded religious zealot.

jesus could not have existed, as the stories of such a person have been handed down over thousands of years and stolen from other religions, these stories can be traced back to Mithras (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40933) and then theres the crucifixion (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45999)Unfortunately you are not knowledgeable about first century Judaism. Israel was a cultural island and resisted the spread of any foreign beliefs like the Mithra cult. First century Jews would not have wanted to model baptism and communion under any of its barbaric practices. According to most scholars it would be extremely implausible to derive any beginnings from a barbaric cult.

And why the cross … http://members.tripod.com/~robertwells/whythecross.html

Now a question for you to think about, geeser. Although written 300 years after the event, the Talmud, a source of Jewish apologetics, includes the reason for the execution of Jesus. If Jesus was not an actual historical figure, why did they include this in the Talmud? Shouldn’t they have said, “This Jesus professed by this Christian sect did not exist at all.” Or maybe they should have written nothing at all to prevent the perpetuation of a mythical figure. Why mention Jesus if He wasn’t an actual person?
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
http://www.rense.com/general43/jesus.htm

I live in the real world, I have an imagination like everybody, thus I know the difference between hallucination and reality.Good for you, geeser, and so do I. The difference is I am free to think on both sides of the debate but you are not. You are held a slave to one side and not really free to think about the other side. If you are a free-thinker then are you willing to explore the other side of the question? Are you willing to be a “truth-seeker”? If you were told you could experience a joy and peace that cannot be defined would you be willing to explore the other side of the question as an intelligent human being?

Sorry about you losing your will to live, geeser, but if your perception to my responses are to convince you that Jesus lived, then you have given me too much credit. I am here to give a healthy debate to common misconceptions about God, religion, Jesus, etc. In fact wouldn’t you agree that your stance on “never going to convince” you about Jesus is exactly like what a closed minded zealous theist would say in regards to their “beliefs”? no, as I'm very open minded, in regard to reality, but I'm certainly closed minded if someone is trying prove fantasy is real. If you are a free-thinker then are you willing to explore the other side of the question, “Does God exist?”, in depth?yes, if it effects reality, and until such a time, as they can prove a god exists in reality, it must be taken on faith alone, and remain a fantasy. Are you free to do that? Are you willing to be a “truth-seeker”?of course, hence why I'm an atheist, I studied for a very long time, to get to where I am. If not, then you are just as “religious” in your non-religious beliefs as a closed minded religious zealot. how so, are you willing to believe in shiny blue polka dotted pink monkeys, who play the drums with a spanner, until such a time as someone has physical evidence of some, they must be taken on faith only.
I do not wish to give homage to non-existence that is infantile.
I'm not irrational.
Now a question for you to think about, geeser. Although written 300 years after the event, the Talmud, a source of Jewish apologetics, includes the reason for the execution of Jesus. If Jesus was not an actual historical figure, why did they include this in the Talmud? Shouldn’t they have said, “This Jesus professed by this Christian sect did not exist at all.” Or maybe they should have written nothing at all to prevent the perpetuation of a mythical figure. Why mention Jesus if He wasn’t an actual person?have you read it thoroughly, I told you I studied for years, I was brought up christian, it was'nt an over night thing, your going against all you've been taught, and all your family and friends, to become an atheist, and I've yet to understand why the religious, deem themselves to be superior, just because I have the good sense to believe in reality, over fantasy.
The Talmud said a? Jesus existed, actually it says several jesus's exist, but nothing Even remotely linking The christianity's version of Jesus.

"I have lost the will to live."
The difference is I am free to think on both sides of the debate but you are not. You are held a slave to one side and not really free to think about the other side.if by thinking you actually mean hallucinated, lets give it a softer word imagined reality, then my side is the rational side, the reasonable side, the logical side, the discerning side. the real side. If you are a free-thinker then are you willing to explore the other side of the question? of course, as long as it stays in reality, it would be infantile to accept, the other side if it was pure speculation, a baseless assumption. Are you willing to be a “truth-seeker”?(same question, same answer.)of course, hence why I'm an atheist, I studied for a very long time, to get to where I am. If you were told you could experience a joy and peace that cannot be defined would you be willing to explore the other side of the question as an intelligent human being?of course, if I dont have to lose my rationality, my senses, to do so.

Many, probably most, religions hold reason in high esteem. Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, each of these religions teaches that one of the beautiful distinctions between man and animal is intellect, rationality. The most brilliant men in history held religious beliefs. The greatest civilizations in history all held their own religious beliefs. Consider the monumental achievements of the Egyptians, which necessitated strong scientific understanding, who were also highly religious.

Humans are historically both religious and scientific. The two fields represent the two basic functions of the mind, which exist in every human mind. To deny someone employment based on the fact that they're religious is to deny that they're human. Moreover, it's a denial of a part of yourself.

First of all i would say that overall i disagree with not hiring someone based on religious belief. The reason i think, is that you can believe in a religion and still be a rational and logical person. ITs like when you go to a horror movie and get scared even though you know it isnt really happening, thats called suspension of disbelief. Its as illogical and irrational as religious belief, but most peopel feel it and deal with it and can partition it away from the other aspects of their lives.

That being said, i do think that believing in god is a lot like going to the horror movie and thinking getting scared even though it obviously cant hurt you. In fact the horror movie is probably way more reality based than the religious belief.

The problem i have with the statement i quoted is that i think beyondtimeandspace doesnt know much about religion. a lot of eastern religious beliefs are less dogmatic that christianity (take buddhism or zen buddhism or taoism for an example) and allow for freedom of thought and action with minimal restrictians based on rules established by their religion. more of a "find the way that works right for you" attitude as opposed to the judeo-christian "our way is the only way and youll go to hell if you dont get it" attitude (and yes i understand theres no hell in judaism).
To compare the egyptian religion to christianity is absolutely absurd. its apples and oranges. the ancient egyptians had a highly developed religious belief system and it was much more practical than that of christianity. all evidence points to the fact that ancient egyptians saw their gods and godesses as embodiments of different aspects of the human experience. although they may have been idealized versions, people worshipped the gods in order to gain knowledge of themselves with the aspiration of someday becoming Godlike in the way that they led their lives. communion with the divine archetype was meant to illuminate a path to transendence and divinity for the human who chose to follow it.

Christianity is a religion pinioned on fear and deprivation of divine knowledge. it relegates humanity to a lesser status of created and imperfect and only allows for us to try to save ourselves from condemnation, not become perfect and acheive a power greater than ourselves.

that is why i wouldnt hire someone who was say, an evangelical christian or a radical muslim, but i would hire a buddhist or a hindu.

whether its wrong or not, who cares, in the US and the UK the law is an arbitrary manifestation of political power and majoritarian shortsightedness, not a bastion of morality. lets not fool ourselves.

The reason i think, is that you can believe in a religion and still be a rational and logical person
But that's the point, by having faith in a unproven (and unprovable) deity the faith holder is thereby demonstrating a lack of logic and rationality.
The fact that we are not allowed, by law, to refuse a job to someone on those grounds is a measure of how entrenched religion is in society, so much so that faith is not even questioned, it's just accepted.